How many men have no clue

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Quadrivium

1. If you think some humans are "less than" or property, then no, to you it wouldn't be wrong.
2. If you believe all humans deserve Basic Human Rights, then yes, to you it would be wrong.

Human or persons/people? Does the Constitution say we the humans or we the people? If you want to suggest all phase of a pregnancy is human, or a life form that can only be human then I agree, but we do not say human when applying your two points above unless we use it relating to or characteristic of humankind, such as human rights. So I disagree with both of your points unless you change human to people and then an unborn is not a person yet, but could be human.

It is a human being.
The only difference between a zygote and you is where you both are in your life cycle.
We could debate being human aka "personhood" vs human being but, as I said, that would move the argument to one with philosophical and spiritual connotations.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah I get ya, just total BS still...

Put your money where your mouth is, if it's total BS, and just say that people should be forced to donate blood, kidneys, livers, bone marrow, lungs, ect. if it would save a life.

I doubt you would say It is all BS if it was your diabetic daughter needing an abortion, or your wife was suffering heart or liver failure because of her pregnancy.

Yes we do, so what is your point unless you are suggest eating people too?

SCOTUS says "abortion takes a life". Is eating meat immoral, because it takes lives? It's disingenuous to say human embryos' and fetuses' lives are sacred and other lives is not.

I don't disagree, its still alive and human though, so the only point is when is it sentient, and just what does being sentient really mean, how do we measure it?

So? It the purview of the woman carrying it to measure it. Not a bunch of pandering politicians or religious busy bodies to decide for her.

An opinion held by many much more learned and smarter than you and I on both sides of the isle for the last 50 years. Its not my personal opinion, but one very popular by those who know, and by the current SC too,

So was Roe. A bunch of "learned" people are disagreeing with each other about controlling a woman's reproductive system, when she's perfectly capable of making those decisions herself, with the help of her personal physicians and family.

so who are we to say otherwise.

We are the women and the people who love them, who know better how to make life changing decisions that effect women's bodies, their lives and their family's life, than a bunch of robed ivory tower politically motivated, religious blowhards making those decisions for her based on 16th century misogynist practices.

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: Quadrivium

Bolding it does not make it so.

Europeans grew up years ago. They jettisoned religion as a controlling interest and have never looked back.

You are one of the ones spouting belief over fact.

a reply to: VierEyes

Prove it's a human being. Can it walk? Can it talk? Can it assert rights?

Stephen Hawkins cannot walk or talk. Why don't you tell him he's not a human being?

My granddaughter can't walk or talk. I hope you don't mention that she's a parasite around my son. I'm running out of places to bury the bodies. Of course, you wouldn't do that... you need to hide behind that keyboard. Why don't you go to a maternity ward at a local hospital and start mouthing that nonsense off? Make it a game... see how long you can remain standing.

It's not semantics when one uses actual definitions.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quadrivium

You have about 3 hours to edit that post.

I know, it's over your head.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

a bunch of robed ivory tower politically motivated, religious blowhards making those decisions for her based on 16th century misogynist practices.

Whatever happened to "The Supreme Court said it's the law of the land, so it's the law of the land"?

Hmmm?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Sookiechacha
You fail to realize.
In 99% of abortions the couple had freewill.
They made a choice to try and were successful in starting a new human beings life.
No one forced anything on them.
They wanted to do it.
It isn't reproductive rights you want
It is the right to another human beings life, you're after.
It is simple fact.
Just admit it and be done.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Look who's talking about being a keyboard warrior. Your back is up, over nothing.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have about 3 hours to edit that post.

I know, it's over your head.

No, seriously!
You know that will stay up as long as ATS is around, right?
Read what you wrote, then go read something with actual meaning.
TicToc.....
(Only a little over 2 hrs left)

a reply to: VierEyes

Nah, I'm the same whether I'm online or in person. I know better than to say stuff like that to parents. You don't, so I can only assume you're just hiding behind that keyboard.

Most people learn better than that by age 6 or 7, when they get tired of being beat up.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: TheRedneck

Look who's talking about being a keyboard warrior. Your back is up, over nothing.

Is THAT why you are here? Because HIS back is up?
That is funny.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: TheRedneck

Look who's talking about being a keyboard warrior. Your back is up, over nothing.

Is THAT why you are here? Because HIS back is up?
That is funny.

I'm here because I cannot believe people are still so backwards. The mature have moved on from abortion being an issue.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Sookiechacha

a bunch of robed ivory tower politically motivated, religious blowhards making those decisions for her based on 16th century misogynist practices.

Whatever happened to "The Supreme Court said it's the law of the land, so it's the law of the land"?

Hmmm?

TheRedneck

We found out that a few religious nut jobs, appointed by pandering politicians, can interpret the constitution any way they please, even based on 16th century BS, spouted by famously misogynous religious bigots who liked to sentence witches to death.

The Court has the lost respect and authority, it once held, of millions upon millions of people, who just saw their constitutional rights and dignity ripped away from their loved ones, themselves, not to mention those this SCOTUS continues to threaten to rip their constitutional rights too.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have about 3 hours to edit that post.

I know, it's over your head.

No, seriously!
You know that will stay up as long as ATS is around, right?
Read what you wrote, then go read something with actual meaning.
TicToc.....
(Only a little over 2 hrs left)

Call it whatever you want. No person, no human being, has the right to hook themselves up to anyone else, without their consent, for life support.

originally posted by: VierEyes

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: VierEyes
a reply to: TheRedneck

Look who's talking about being a keyboard warrior. Your back is up, over nothing.

Is THAT why you are here? Because HIS back is up?
That is funny.

I'm here because I cannot believe people are still so backwards. The mature have moved on from abortion being an issue.

I am sorry you were not able to have children but, as I have already shown, you, and those like you, have the same mentality as slave holders in the 1600s.
It is a backwards, retarded way of thinking, given the way science has advanced.

You can pout, stomp your feet and scream at the top of your lungs "IT is not a HUMAN BEING" but it is.
Just as slaves, in the 1600s, where.
Just as killing a slave then, was the premeditated killing of another human being (as they were "property" and considered "less than human), abortion now is the premeditated killing of another human being because they are viewed as property and "less than" human.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have about 3 hours to edit that post.

I know, it's over your head.

No, seriously!
You know that will stay up as long as ATS is around, right?
Read what you wrote, then go read something with actual meaning.
TicToc.....
(Only a little over 2 hrs left)

Call it whatever you want. No person, no human being, has the right to hook themselves up to anyone else, without their consent, for life support.

In 99% of abortion cases, consent was given.

a reply to: Quadrivium

And yet, you think it's proper and moral to turn unwilling women into slaves to their biology.

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Quadrivium

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

You have about 3 hours to edit that post.

I know, it's over your head.

No, seriously!
You know that will stay up as long as ATS is around, right?
Read what you wrote, then go read something with actual meaning.
TicToc.....
(Only a little over 2 hrs left)

Call it whatever you want. No person, no human being, has the right to hook themselves up to anyone else, without their consent, for life support.

In 99% of abortion cases, consent was given.

Sexual intercourse is not consent to pregnancy nor parenthood.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: Quadrivium

And yet, you think it's proper and moral to turn unwilling women into slaves to their biology.

At what point were they, or their partner, unwilling?
Was it rape?
If so, there is an argument for those 0.5% of cases.

a reply to: Quadrivium

I'm not at all sorry I couldn't have children. I didn't want them and I'm damn glad that early on, when I still thought I could get pregnant, safe abortion was an option available to me.

No one should be denied a safe abortion. I wouldn't wish a forced pregnancy on my worst enemy. That is 18 years of servitude.